The name Bobby Fischer, at least to Americans,
is synonymous with chess. A prodigy in the 50s, a world class player in the 60s,
the 70s saw Fischer at his pinnacle. He earned the right to challenge Boris Spassky
in a title run without comparison, defeating Mark Taimanov and Bent Larsen
with perfect scores of 6-0, and ex-champion Petrosian 6½-2½. Now the
stage was set, and the only thing standing between Fischer and Spassky was Fischer himself.

Fischer vs Spassky, 1972

The match was mired in political overtones,
during the height of the Cold War.
The Soviet chess system had a monopoly on the title since 1948, and the expectations on
Spassky were enormous. While Fischer studied chess virtually in seclusion, Spassky had the
full resources of the USSR. Victor Baturinsky, head of Soviet Chess Sports Committee,
said: "Basically, the Soviet leadership and the powers that be in sport, were interested in
just one issue: how to stop Fischer from becoming World Champion."[1]

With the match set to begin in Reykjavik, Iceland, Fischer (who had not signed any documents
confirming his participation) began to make a number of
demands, including a percentage of television rights, a larger prize fund, and all
manner of conditions covering everything from the lighting to the chair cushions.
To satisfy Bobby's demands of a larger prize fund, British chess promoter James Slater
donated a dazzling $125,000 to be added to the prize fund. Fischer still needed more
convincing by Bill Lombardy (Fischer's last-minute choice as second), and one famously
persuasive telephone call from Henry Kissinger. Mere hours before he would
be forfeited, Fischer arrived in Iceland.

On July 11th, the "Match of the Century" had begun. Whether it was a blunder, or a passion to win at all costs,
the first game saw Fischer uncharacteristically lose a simple drawn endgame.
Game 2 was awarded to Spassky by forfeit when Fischer failed to appear
in a dispute over the presence of cameras in the playing hall.

With the score 2-0 in Spassky's favor, Fischer refused to play unless TV cameras were removed from
the playing hall. Only a last minute agreement by Spassky to play away from the cameras
permitted the third game to be held. This turned out to be a huge psychological mistake by
Spassky. In game 3, in a small room backstage,
Fischer beat Spassky for the first time in his life. The games then returned to the main
stage, but without cameras. Winning again in games 5, 6, 8, and 10 the Fischer juggernaut
had become unstoppable.

On September 3, 1972, Robert James Fischer became the 11th World Chess Champion.

Well, Korchnoi would've been far less enthusiastic about Fischer's demands. While Karpov tried his best to have the match, Korchnoi might have spread his germs a few times due to constant arguing about the match conditions.

As the arguing would continue, with Korchnoi getting unhappier, maybe FIDE would've put pressure on Fischer to finish the negotiations quickly and Fischer would've either a) said no or b) just threatened not to play.

If the actual match between those two had taken place, Korchnoi would've been a difficult opponent, but I dare not say my take on the score!

Game 15 - that was a genuine toe to toe slug out. Fischer played the best chess over the 20 games but IMO Spassky played the move of the match. That 36.Re4!in game 15.

The 1972 Fischer beats everyone and anyone. But as Adolf Anderssen once said:

"It is impossible to keep one's excellence in a glass case, like a jewel, and take it out whenever it is required."

1992 gave us a glimpse at the jewel, but one could see the glitter had faded.

The critics claim that Fischer knew the 1975 clauses would never be met and he would not have to play.

Maybe - maybe not. The riddle that was Bobby Fischer will never be solved.

-----

Hi A.T PhoneHome,

Fischer - Korchnoi.

Korchnoi would have shrugged off the demands. He was World Championship hungry. This is a man who defected from the USSR knowing what repercussions would follow.

Look at the intense pressure he was under to qualify for the '78 final (and without being too unkind look at his back team compared to what the USSR would have given him.)

Fischer demands for venue, number of games, lighting etc..etc... would have been nothing compared to the pressure Korchnoi was put under after he defected. This is a tough player with a one tracked mind and a very tough personalty.

Fischer v USSR II would have taken place and the bidding for the venue would have run into millions.

A.T PhoneHome: <Sally Simpson> Totally forgot the timeline, should've paid more attention to Korchnoi's situation at the time. Didn't the situation between Korchnoi and Soviets escalate around the Candidates Final in 1974?

perfidious: <A.T> It was in 1974 that Korchnoi gave his notorious 'Unsporting, Grandmaster' interview, a direct consequence of which was his suspension by the Soviet federation from international play for one year.

A.T PhoneHome: <perfidious> Korchnoi does have a reputation as an outspoken individual; I can understand why someone would dislike him.

But check the flip side and you will see a fearless, single-minded man who stands up to himself, instead of a foul mouth.

Thank you for the detailed answer! Much appreciated. :) are there any Internet sources for the said interview? Of course I can look up by myself, but you might remember something out of the top of your head!

SteinitzLives: Korchnoi is the Balanchine of chess: Brilliant, Ruthless, Tortured, Selfish deserving of both fame, un-received accolades and disgrace, and a punch in the mouth for making a 14 year old Irina Krush cry during the post mortem, after she beat him.

Viktor the "terrible" and "unfairly treated and cheated" too mean and too tough to die. He has more contradictions than any great southern writer.

Love him or hate him, he remains larger than life, while the rest of chess fans sit like jeering or cheering empty-lived spectating sheeple, while he takes the stage wherever he is.

AylerKupp: <diceman> You are overlooking the psychological factors. State of mind is a difficult thing to assess, but It would be a different situation if Spassky had put his foot down and Fischer, his bluff called, had gone down to 0-3. He would have known that his little mind tricks would not work and would have had to figure out what to do next. At any rate, after being down 0-3, there was a good possibility that Fischer would have simply gone home and forfeited the match. Hard to say but it would have been consistent with his earlier behavior.

And being down 1-2 with his confidence intact after winning the third game is also a big difference than being down 0-3 with his confidence probably shattered. No one can say with any certainty that in those circumstances he would have been able to win games 5, 6, 10, etc. For all we know he might have overreached in his attempt to get back into the match and Spassky would have won by a big margin.

AylerKupp: <diceman> As I've said before, I don't consider Spassky a victim. He did it to himself, so I have no sympathy towards him. All he had to do was insist that the 2 players adhere to the rules that they had agreed to beforehand. But he got involved in the "fairness", "sportsmanship", and "the match must go on regardless" arguments and he wasn't up to the challenge.

And I am not talking about being "in the noise" 2 down vs. being 3 down. Had Spassky insisted that the previously agreed to rule rules be followed, there was a strong possibility that Fischer would have forfeited the 3rd game as well and might even have left Iceland, forfeiting the match. As it was, Fischer won the 3rd game, so the difference was between being 1-2 and 0-3. Even a draw in that 3rd game would have left Fischer down ½-2 ½, not 1-2. Maybe "in the noise", maybe not. It's all a matter of perception and neither one of us know what Fischer's perception would have been.

And I am saying that there is a good possibility that what actually happened would never had happened had Spassky insisted that the rules be adhered to. No one should assume that Fischer's play would have been the same and the results the same had the match started 0-3 against him instead of the actual 1-2. Different situations, possibly different results. Again, we don't know.

Yes, Fischer would likely have been more aggressive in the games that he didn't mind drawing. But that works both ways. Being aggressive when the position does not call for it can often backfire. Fischer was typically very objective in his evaluation of positions and usually did not attempt to press an insufficient or non-existent advantage. But, being down 0-3 in what supposedly was his main goal in life after being put in his place, who knows?

I don't know why you say that folks try to make Fischer results "normal/pedestrian" and fawn over non-Fischer results. There was nothing "normal/pedestrian" about Fischer's results from mid-1966 to mid-1972. Outstanding is probably the lowest-keyed description. And I don't know what the "fawning" is about non-Fischer results. Please elaborate. Nor do I know why you say that Karpov would not have been Fischer's challenger, etc. What would have caused things to be different other than Fischer might not have been the defending WC if he had not beaten Spassky after falling behind 0-3 in their match? We might have had a Spassky-Karpov match in 1975 instead of a Fischer-Karpov match.

But if Fischer had, say, walked out on the match upon being down 0-3 (a very distinct possibility in my view), he still would have been seeded into the 1974 Candidates. In other words, he would have--in effect--gotten Spassky's place.

But would he have forfeited that spot, like he was to do in 1977 ? We can only speculate.

A.T PhoneHome: In a nutshell, when Game 3 neared its start, Fischer knew he had to do something and he knew for a fact that Spassky is a gentleman. His cards were on Spassky giving in to Fischer's demand and even that wasn't guaranteed; Fischer had to make numerous pleas to finally turn Spassky around to accept Fischer's request to play in the back room.

Fischer had made all sorts of demands, but after Game 2 he was yet to score even a draw. This was the ultimate demand; Fischer who wanted chess to grow as spectator sport, was now the guy to demand the opposite: NO spectators.

I know there was a small security camera or something like that, but Fischer made a demand which fought against EVERYTHING his demands had been made for before Game 3.

Petrosianic: Being a gentleman doesn't mean bending over for him completely. For example, after Game 3, Spassky refused to play in the back room again. He probably meant it, and Fischer didn't ask.

Fischer behaved so badly in that game, that Spassky might easily have walked out. Fischer actually got in a shouting match with Lothar Schmid while Spassky was on the move. In 1977, Spassky said that when that happened, he should have just resigned the game right then and there and walked out. Of course that's easy to say in hindsight, knowing that he lost it anyway.

Petrosianic: It's an opinion, of course, but my opinion is that Spassky would have bailed had Fischer forfeited Game 3. Either that or the organizers would have pulled the plug before they got too much bad publicity. But either way, the match would have been off.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

Don't post personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.